John Walker

This sounds appealing but there are a couple of major problems.

The first is that you have to get to a significant percentage of light speed for this to manifest itself. Even at 0.95c time is only traveling at 1/3 of normal speed [1].

Second, the energy cost for this is truly mind-boggling. Doing so when you carry the fuel seems highly impractical. The best bet are laser highways [2]. But, you need to build that first.

The upper limit of laser propulsion isn't really high enough for that level of time dilation.

Third, traveling at these speeds makes any potential impact within even a speck of dust potentially fatal.

Lastly, fun fact: such a ship actually needs to be aerodynamic. Why? Above 0.95c the drag of hydrogen atoms in the interstellar medium will start to slow you down.

[1]: https://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDR4AHYRmlk

OP, don't know you but rooting for you

Re eating/getting healthier,

1) food: this guy Rip is truly a lifechanger (esp if since you're in the zone when it would be smart to look after your heart: https://mealplanner.plantstrong.com/

2) Lose weight (this approach might be appealing to your engineer'y instinct): https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/

3) Exercise:

- Warm up (DO THESE): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QWyyHfARNI

- Try to get through a round of this w/ good form + then try to do 2, 3, etc: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTSIqbuZC0Y&t=369s

I don't have any career advice for you, leaving is one option but consider that it would great for you to "skill-up" the people around you so when you leave it isn't like they lost their Golden-Boii, but rather bow out like a Bob Iger at Disney & leave them with a glorious future blah blah

This was my initial reaction as well, as I have complete disdain for the lowest common denominator approach to many things in modern society. But then something occurred to me - IMO one of the most well written scientific papers is Einstein's special relativity paper. [1] But it's absolutely a 'story mode' paper! A moderately educated individual could easily understand and follow the paper, even if they might not necessarily follow all the math. It just flows inordinately better than most modern papers - most of which are written on comparably simple and evolutionary (rather than revolutionary) topics.

Of course this may be an issue of domain. I'm mostly interested in cosmology/astronomy/physics, where math is a tool rather than the object of the paper itself.

[1] - https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

Here a paper can be found about running the "cards" created by Rainer Glaschick based on the program described in Lady Lovelace's Note G on a modified emulator of the Babbage's analytical engine:

https://rclab.de/analyticalengine/lovelace_noteg_paper

And the text by the author of that emulator about the authenticity of the emulator:

https://www.fourmilab.ch/babbage/authentic.html

Note that the sizes of what we would today call "registers" in what we would today call "ALU" were, per 1837 description 40, per 1864 description 50 decimal digits, much bigger than the number of mantissa decimals in common "float" (7) or "double" (15) floating point representations, and the assumption of the engine was to use fixed point decimal arithmetic.

In 1988, Autodesk (makers of AutoCAD) was so impressed by the Xanadu project that they gave them financial backing, hoping to bring a product to market the following year. After four years without any progress, Autodesk gave up:

> […] Come 1992, the “resources of Autodesk” were still funding “talent of the Xanadu team” which had not, as of that date, produced anything remotely like a production prototype—in fact, nothing as impressive as the 88.1x prototype which existed before Autodesk invested in Xanadu. On August 21, 1992 Autodesk decided to pull the plug and give its interest in Xanadu back to the Xanadudes.

(Quoted from footnote linked from this page: https://www.fourmilab.ch/autofile/e5/chapter2_64.html)

From the original https://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/how3.html

> To create each random bit, we wait until the first count occurs, then measure the time, T1, until the next. We then wait for a second pair of pulses and measure the interval T2 between them, yielding a pair of durations. If they're the same, we throw away the measurement and try again. Otherwise if T1 is less than T2 we emit a zero bit; if T1 is greater than T2, a one bit. In practice, to avoid any residual bias resulting from non-random systematic errors in the apparatus or measuring process consistently favouring one state, the sense of the comparison between T1 and T2 is reversed for consecutive bits.